|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 17, 2021 17:13:02 GMT
I have grown concerned lately, for reasons that need not be belabored here, that there is some ambiguity --- either in my mind, the mind of others, or both --- as to what we mean, when we say that something is "the teaching of the Church".
I am a Catholic "adopted son" of 45 years who did not have the "home-court advantage" of being raised in a Catholic home, where practices are just absorbed from babyhood, with not always the most profound intellectual or apologetical framework being "front and center" --- "this is just the way it is, this is just what we've always believed, end of story". And in a pious, doctrinally orthodox Catholic home, this has a high presumption of being correct. My intellectual and spiritual "baggage" from the fundamentalist Christian culture in which I was raised --- we didn't partake of it, but it was impossible to escape --- is minimal. I didn't have all that much to "unlearn". Indeed, when I first encountered Catholicism, it was really kind of like piloting a spaceship and landing on the surface of "the planet Catholic", and discovering that this had been my innate, primordial, atavistic "religion" all along, I just didn't know it, because I'd never known about it. My thoughts were "finally, at long last, a religion that thinks exactly like I do!". The experience was as exhilarating as it was liberating. I have come to think of mine as "an infant baptism delayed by fifteen years".
But anyway. Extended narratives belong to an earlier time. Today's attention-span is all about the sound bites. (My son and I have attempted to read some 19th-century literature, and we have both found the long, detailed passages boring, irritating, and impossible to follow. Moving to something a bit more recent, I find Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to be unreadable --- great story, but she goes into almost-Aspergerian detail, I have to wonder if she was an "Aspie" herself. Or maybe she just got paid by the word.) I'll cut to the chase.
I have always thought of the term "the teaching of the Church" to consist of:
dogma, those beliefs that admit of no interpretation, cannot be changed, and must be accepted in toto by anyone who wishes to call themselves a Catholic doctrine, those beliefs that, while being an extrapolation of "the deposit of Faith" that has existed from the beginning, at least in rudimentary form, are binding upon the faithful to believe (albeit with varying degrees of certitude), and that can develop, but cannot change "from X to non-X"
morality, "what is right and what is wrong", what is a sin and what isn't, sometimes admitting of no interpretation (e.g., Humanae vitae), sometimes not being so clear-cut, and admitting of more probable and less probable opinions, with the pars tutior --- the safer option --- always being a possibility, and sometimes the option which should be followed
And that's about it. WRT moral teaching and moral theology, the Church can only "micro-manage" up to a point, and then the interpretation of Moral Teaching X, applied to a concrete situation, has to fall under the mantle of "casuistry", or "applied morality", if you prefer. That is where a legitimate exercise of "conscience" can come in, avoiding the extremes of scrupulosity (which is a pathological and often all-pervasive defect of personality) or, as is far more common in our day, moral laxity. As I always say, the Church cannot go to the grocery store with us and help us decide whether to choose paper or plastic (or to take our own durable, reusable bag, as Aldi shoppers must do). And this could, indeed, be a question of moral reasoning and conscience. Greta Thunberg would certainly approach it that way. (Seriously. To Miss Thunberg, using plastic most certainly would be a moral issue. Just ask her, and I bet I can tell you what she'd say)
But what, then, of merely disciplinary matters, or to take it one step even "further out", matters involving the mere temporal administration of the Church? Do those constitute "teaching of the Church"? There are, to be sure, things that are "not quite a doctrine, but a little more than just discipline", and the first thing that comes to mind for me, is priestly celibacy. Obviously, per St Paul, celibacy is to be preferred, both for clergy and for laity. Yet there have been married priests (and, at least at the outset, even bishops) throughout the history of the Church, it is just not the current discipline of the Roman Rite of the Church to have married clergy. Rome has granted certain exceptions, usually to "graft in" ministers of other Christian religions who convert to Catholicism and, of course, wish to keep their wives and families. (At least in our culture, the alternative would be considered cruel and, indeed, grotesque. Besides, the prospective priest would still be subject to his marriage vows.) Yet if you broach even the possibility of married Roman Rite clergy to many faithful Catholics, they recoil in shock and disgust. They are scandalized. I know this first-hand --- I mentioned this possibility one time to a Filipino Catholic, and I might as well have stuck a fork in an electric socket! She grew deeply upset and begged me to stop talking about it. Again, "not quite a doctrine, but a little more than just discipline".
Many Catholics have such reactions, and they don't always draw fine distinctions in their minds between what could be changed, and what can't. I have to think that, if they're raised from babyhood as I described, it's all "just one big ball of Catholic", and they can't handle such a discussion. Another such example was when a friend of mine, a former high school classmate, had somewhere, somehow, picked up the idea that the binding force of Humanae vitae depended upon what diocese you lived in, and what the bishop and priests of that diocese taught. I told her that this was utterly false, she'd been mistaught, and that if that were the case, and one wants to practice ABC, then why not make it easy on oneself, and just move to that diocese? Again, "fork in an electric socket". She recoiled at my comments and replied to the effect of "this is my faith, this is how I've been raised to believe, and God will never give me anything in life that I can't handle". Totally irrational. Again, to her, it was "just one big ball of Catholic".
Anyway, as to disciplinary matters, or matters involving the administration of the Church, there are clearly things that are, in themselves, doctrinally and/or morally neutral, and are just "the way the Church organizes itself, unto good order and, ultimately, the salvation of souls". For instance, there is nothing in the Bible about dividing the real estate of the earth up into territorial dioceses. The word "diocese" or "eparchy" doesn't appear in Scripture. Neither Scripture, nor, so far as I am aware, Sacred Tradition, make any reference to the College of Cardinals, nor of their role in choosing a new Pope. (I've wondered why the Pope does not just choose his successor ahead of time, either secretly or openly, and leave the Roman clergy out of it entirely, IOW, make it similar to a hereditary monarchy, though with spiritual sonship rather than sonship in the order of nature and generation. Would he not be within his rights? And if not, why not? Do Scripture or Tradition specify how Peter's successor is chosen?) And so on.
Do these things constitute "teaching of the Church", if so, why, and if not, why not?
Well, there it is. I'll now leave it to others, to chime in, if they so wish. I'd like to get a good discussion started.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 17, 2021 17:55:05 GMT
The Catholic Church's magisterium is exercised in statements by popes and bishops, whether collectively (as by an episcopal conference) or singly, in written documents such as catechisms, encyclicals, and pastoral letters, or orally, as in homilies. These statements are part of the ordinary magisterium of the church.
The First Vatican Council declared that, "all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."[8]
The Second Vatican Council declared further that not everything contained in the statements of the ordinary magisterium is infallible, but the Catholic Church holds that the Church's infallibility is invested in the statements of its universal ordinary magisterium: "Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely."[9]
Such teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are obviously not given in a single specific document. They are teachings upheld as authoritative, generally for a long time, by the entire body of bishops. Examples given are the teaching on the rese
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 17, 2021 18:01:31 GMT
Discipline is handled in accordance with Canon Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 17, 2021 18:35:17 GMT
Discipline is handled in accordance with Canon Law. Quite right, and one corollary of my question is "to what extent can discliplinary practices be considered 'teaching of the Church'?", as well as "to what extent must assent of mind, heart, and will --- let alone outward adherence --- be given to disciplinary practices (or matters of Church governance and order)?". IOW, can I respectfully disagree as to whether, for instance, a diocese should have been split in two, how it was split, or whether the see city should have been City A instead of City B?
Your prior comment, which appears to have gotten truncated, is very good, and is precisely what I have always understood. Thanks so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 17, 2021 18:38:44 GMT
Your only recourse is to appeal t the Bishop. His decision is likely non-negotiable. This is something that loads of people struggle with.
As you know, the Church is big on obedience, even, and especially, when we don't understand, or perhaps know the factors leading to a particular judgement.
But yeah he gets to decide and we get to just trust and obey. The priests deal with this on a much grander scale BTW.
Sorry for the wonky previous post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obedience on Aug 17, 2021 18:46:31 GMT
The Catholic Church's magisterium is exercised in statements by popes and bishops, whether collectively (as by an episcopal conference) or singly, in written documents such as catechisms, encyclicals, and pastoral letters, or orally, as in homilies. These statements are part of the ordinary magisterium of the church. The First Vatican Council declared that, "all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."[8] The Second Vatican Council declared further that not everything contained in the statements of the ordinary magisterium is infallible, but the Catholic Church holds that the Church's infallibility is invested in the statements of its universal ordinary magisterium: "Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely."[9] Such teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are obviously not given in a single specific document. They are teachings upheld as authoritative, generally for a long time, by the entire body of bishops. Examples given are the teaching on the rese Do you believe all Anathemas of the Catholic Church are Infallible as defined? |
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 17, 2021 19:03:53 GMT
Such as?
|
|
|
|
Post by Obedience on Aug 17, 2021 19:11:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Aug 17, 2021 19:20:27 GMT
I think you're looking for an argument.
Be MORE specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 17, 2021 19:26:54 GMT
Your only recourse is to appeal t the Bishop. His decision is likely non-negotiable. This is something that loads of people struggle with. As you know, the Church is big on obedience, even, and especially, when we don't understand, or perhaps know the factors leading to a particular judgement. But yeah he gets to decide and we get to just trust and obey. The priests deal with this on a much grander scale BTW. Sorry for the wonky previous post. Thanks, but I'm not clear what you're referring to here, nor what this is, that "loads of people struggle with". I have no dispute with anyone in the hierarchy of the Church. I am in good standing with my bishop, as I am with both my canonical (residential) pastor and my de facto pastor, who routinely accepts requests, such as mine, to be registered as "members" of his parish, even if one does not live within its boundaries, as I do not. I put "members" in quotes because, in the eyes of canon law, I am canonically a parishioner of the parish within whose territory both of my homes lie, even though I attend the church of my de facto pastor. The pastor of my geographical parish is aware of my choice, and he is entirely fine with it. He came to the house and ministered to my father on the day of his death, without question.
The situation with my wife's illicit "remarriage" is the subject of an ongoing dispute, which is on hiatus for now, for some very good reasons, but in no way does it involve "teaching of the Church", nor did I even refer to it, in my OP to this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Aug 17, 2021 20:11:41 GMT
I am a Catholic "adopted son" of 45 years who did not have the "home-court advantage" of being raised in a Catholic home, where practices are just absorbed from babyhood, with not always the most profound intellectual or apologetical framework being "front and center" --- "this is just the way it is, this is just what we've always believed, end of story". And in a pious, doctrinally orthodox Catholic home, this has a high presumption of being correct. My intellectual and spiritual "baggage" from the fundamentalist Christian culture in which I was raised --- we didn't partake of it, but it was impossible to escape --- is minimal. I didn't have all that much to "unlearn". Indeed, when I first encountered Catholicism, it was really kind of like piloting a spaceship and landing on the surface of "the planet Catholic", and discovering that this had been my innate, primordial, atavistic "religion" all along, I just didn't know it, because I'd never known about it. My thoughts were "finally, at long last, a religion that thinks exactly like I do!". The experience was as exhilarating as it was liberating. I have come to think of mine as "an infant baptism delayed by fifteen years".
I suggest that there is much to ‘unlearn’ from fundamentalist Christianity in becoming Catholic. I’ve seen this negative characterisation of cradle Catholicism before and I suspect its roots in (an unnecessary) jealousy. Ecumenism is all about mutual appreciation of Christs gifts for the scriptural goal of unity of Christians. The Protestant movement became a gnostic movement when it dispensed with the authority of the Church. It developed a contempt for the obedience of Catholics and in the process, it lost appreciation for the virtue of obedience. Ignatius Loyola was the ultimate defender of obedience during the Reformation. He stated “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines” as a key to developing discernment and wisdom. There are genuine prophets in our times who are gifted with that charism, but they efficacious by their holiness, gentleness and humility. Many today believe they are prophets despite lacking all the signs. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Aug 17, 2021 20:20:57 GMT
The Catholic Church's magisterium is exercised in statements by popes and bishops, whether collectively (as by an episcopal conference) or singly, in written documents such as catechisms, encyclicals, and pastoral letters, or orally, as in homilies. These statements are part of the ordinary magisterium of the church. The First Vatican Council declared that, "all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."[8] The Second Vatican Council declared further that not everything contained in the statements of the ordinary magisterium is infallible, but the Catholic Church holds that the Church's infallibility is invested in the statements of its universal ordinary magisterium: "Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely."[9] Such teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are obviously not given in a single specific document. They are teachings upheld as authoritative, generally for a long time, by the entire body of bishops. Examples given are the teaching on the rese Do you believe all Anathemas of the Catholic Church are Infallible as defined? Depends on whether it was addressing dogma or not. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 17, 2021 21:44:13 GMT
I am a Catholic "adopted son" of 45 years who did not have the "home-court advantage" of being raised in a Catholic home, where practices are just absorbed from babyhood, with not always the most profound intellectual or apologetical framework being "front and center" --- "this is just the way it is, this is just what we've always believed, end of story". And in a pious, doctrinally orthodox Catholic home, this has a high presumption of being correct. My intellectual and spiritual "baggage" from the fundamentalist Christian culture in which I was raised --- we didn't partake of it, but it was impossible to escape --- is minimal. I didn't have all that much to "unlearn". Indeed, when I first encountered Catholicism, it was really kind of like piloting a spaceship and landing on the surface of "the planet Catholic", and discovering that this had been my innate, primordial, atavistic "religion" all along, I just didn't know it, because I'd never known about it. My thoughts were "finally, at long last, a religion that thinks exactly like I do!". The experience was as exhilarating as it was liberating. I have come to think of mine as "an infant baptism delayed by fifteen years".
I suggest that there is much to ‘unlearn’ from fundamentalist Christianity in becoming Catholic. I’ve seen this negative characterisation of cradle Catholicism before and I suspect its roots in (an unnecessary) jealousy. Ecumenism is all about mutual appreciation of Christs gifts for the scriptural goal of unity of Christians. The Protestant movement became a gnostic movement when it dispensed with the authority of the Church. It developed a contempt for the obedience of Catholics and in the process, it lost appreciation for the virtue of obedience. Ignatius Loyola was the ultimate defender of obedience during the Reformation. He stated “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines” as a key to developing discernment and wisdom. There are genuine prophets in our times who are gifted with that charism, but they efficacious by their holiness, gentleness and humility. Many today believe they are prophets despite lacking all the signs. I was not raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I wasn't really raised as anything. We did not go to church. I probably hadn't gone to church much more than a dozen times in my life before discovering Catholicism. "Church" was something other people did. As I said, I really had very little to unlearn, basically a blank slate.
I don't think mine is an especially negative characterization, "factual" would be more like it. FWIW, people raised in the various stripes of Protestantism very often don't have great reserves of mental probity about it, "it's just the way they were raised" and they give little, if any, thought to "what it would be like if I hadn't been raised this way". I don't think there's a thing in the world wrong with someone, coming in "from the outside", with a fresh perspective, saying "precisely why do we believe X, why do we do Y, and why do we not believe in Z?". I've seen too many examples of people just having to stammer and say "but... but... but... that's just how I was raised, what I was always taught, what I've always believed", sometimes with a fillip of "you're attacking my religion!". I hate to say it, but that, all by itself, proves nothing. The older catechisms, such as the Baltimore Catechism, start off from key first principles --- why we exist, what we were made for, proofs of the existence of God from reason, and so on --- and you learn those, before you learn anything else. Perhaps newer catechisms do the same thing. I hope so.
And, yes, as long as the family is orthodox in their Catholic faith, understands their religion, and lives it, it is far better to be a "cradle Catholic" than a seeking convert. I'll freely acknowledge that. On the other hand, people who "discover it anew", with a "blank slate" (as was my situation), and have a living memory of "not being Catholic" versus "being Catholic", can bring, as you note, "gifts" to the table, including the gift of being freed of the concept of "I believe this because my parents believed it, and their parents believed it, and it's just the way I was raised". An adult faith needs more of a "reason for hope" than that. Both are necessary. If we were solely a hereditary religion, and had no converts, we'd be like the Druze or the Zoroastrians writ large. Not sure how good that would be. It's a moot point anyway, as all people are called to be Catholic, it's just that about 84% of the world's population hasn't figured that out yet.
I profess to be no prophet --- the mere suggestion would be laughable! --- and I am totally of one mind with what St Ignatius Loyola said about "white versus black", as long as it can be established that we are talking about "the teachings of the Church", unchanging Catholic truths of doctrine and morality, and not merely opinions or disciplinary matters that can be changed from X to non-X.
|
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Aug 17, 2021 21:49:58 GMT
You have to listen and do what church teaches. I follow 10 commandments
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Aug 17, 2021 21:51:42 GMT
You have to listen and do what church teaches. It's in the Apostles Creed. No argument whatsoever. My question deals solely with "what, indeed, do we mean when we say 'what the Church teaches'? ". |
|
